- This topic has 10 voices and 15 replies.
-
Posts
-
I believe that the various indiginous American empires – Aztecs near present-day Mexico, the Mayans, and the Incans – had a few hundred years of development before the arrival of European settlers in the 15th and 16th Centuries. These empires were quite vast, and their architecture is on par with some of the wonders of the ancient world of Europe.
The question I present is this – if these indiginous American nations were existing for all this time, how or why did they not advance in technology, sciences, and (as far as I know) the other arts (i.e. philosophy, politics) as the Europeans did? Think about it – at some point in time, European and American civilizations may have been able to compete against one another. Yet by the 16th Century, Europeans had developed enough that they were able to swiftly defeat these empires. What explains the discrepancy in civilization advancement?
Several things.
1. Time. Europeans had a head start on the New World Civilizations.
2. Diversity. There were more ethnic groups with diverse cultural contributions where a synthesis of juxtaposed ideas intermingled which created advancements in technology.
3. Accessible Resources and new writing forms. The Middle East and Asia Minor had vast amounts of tar and pitch, clay, and granite to build with early on. The technology learned there spread to Europe via the Phoenicians and Greeks who each had alphabets and linear writing capabilities necessary for the retainment of complex knowledge above cunieform and hieroglyphics.
4. Competition. The Middle East and Europe were more populous and prone to internecine conflict.....the greatest motivator of innovation.....developing the means to defeat one's enemies.
5. Papyrus/Paper. The ability to archive greater amounts of written knowledge gave rise to a scribe class who codified, catalogued, and dissimenated their knowledge to artisans, craftsmen, and merchants who could transport their knowledge to ever wider distances away from the epicenter of their societies.
6. Christianity. Religions that prosyletize provide another way to contribute to the exchange of ideas. The Mayans, Aztecs, and Incas did not prosyletize their religions but remained localized at the main shrines located in capitals such as Tenochitlan.That’s a good list of “key ingredients” that make up a strong civilization. However, I’m not sure that Europeans necessarily had a “head start” on all the NW civs.; the Maya were building structures near 1000 B.C., which would have placed them before even Rome. As far as natural resources, I think that the Inca, Maya, and Aztec Empires were not deprived of such, and as they were all located near oceans, and they had access for trade and development. The NW civs didn’t experience war the same as European nations did, yet they had their own battles. This lack of regular war – or relative confinement from other superpowers -probably played a huge factor in their development.
Your point about Christianity and prosyletizing is well taken. Such activities require proactive steps to travel and go outside one's confines - yet one could argue that Christianity only began after the Romans has already built a good transportation system and had already mastered the art of war.
One thing of note - the NW civilizations were all essentially warm-weathered people; Europe, however, developed in a largely cold-weathered world. Perhaps this had something to do with technology advancement in terms of food, shelter, and community.There were several factors that gave the Spanish advantages in their conquest of America. Among these were: 1. Steel 2. naval technology 3. at least 2 factors relating to the domestication of hoofed animals-resistance to disease and military advantages of war-horses. 4. Military tactics. 5. Blind luck.The Europeans did not enjoy an overall advantage in what could be called science. The Americans were ahead of the Europeans in mathematics, medicine, architecture and design, and astronomy. Christianity was a factor, but more as a mobilizing factor and an excuse for the Spanish. As far as the Americans were concerned, it was just one more thing to add to their pantheon of gods. It had appeared to the Spanish that the Indians had easily accepted their new religion--which they did, but in ways the Spanish did not understand. I seems Christianity was more of a force that led to misunderstanding and exclusivity rather than open communication.Steel weapons were a match for the Aztec's well made obsidian blades. It was the Spanish knowledge about navy technology that made their assault on Tenochtitlan possible. (And 10,000 Tlaxcalans). They put their cannon on small ships and blew down the walls. (Tenochtitlan was an island).The main fight with the Spanish and Aztecs was not supposed to happen at Tenochtitlan (Mexico City) , but another place outside the city. However, when the Spanish arrived with their Tlaxcaln allies, the Aztec warriors were all either dead or gravely ill from small pox. Not a single skirmish arose from what promised to be a great battle. After the Aztecs were finished, the Tlaxcalans never got the ascendancy they hoped for, because then they fell to small pox as well. This left the Spanish to run the show.
Great post Nomad:
European weaponry really did not begin to make a difference technologically until the flintlock's range surpassed the bow and arrow. In fact, in close combat, the bow and arrow remained on par with the guns because of the speed and ease it could be reloaded compared to clumsy long barrel muskets. At greater distances, the bow and arrow was more accurate which favored the natives. Smallpox did more damage than any European technology ever did.Skiguy over at the Religious History Forum pointed me to an article which discusses pretty much this very topic of why Europe came to dominate. The article says that Europe was the only place where capitalism developed, and in that it developed through Christian roots which valued reason (take that, modernists!). You can read the article here.
I highly recommend a fictional novel by Orson Scott Card. (I know, I know, its fiction, but its still really excellent.)The novel is called, Pastwatch: The Redemption of Christopher Columbus. it's a sci-fi novel, but if you can get past that, the author presents his ideas about how the american civilizations could have been protected from European invasions, and what would have happened if they hadn't been so completely wiped out by the Conquistadores. He vaccinates the natives, to counter the diseases; introduces a variant form of christianity, both to ease the fear of the God-like europeans and to aid in diplomatic relations later; and stalls the advance of the Europeans to the New World by about forty years. He postulates that in that forty year time span, the Aztec empire, on its last legs, would have toppled, but been replaced by an empire of Tlaxcalans, who would utilize the leftover Aztec infrastructure to unify most of the tribes who had fallen under Aztec domination. also some interesting things in there about naval tech, and its state in the Americas at the time of the conquest.speculative, i'll grant you, but really cool.
I highly recommend a fictional novel by Orson Scott Card.? (I know, I know, its fiction, but its still really excellent.)The novel is called, Pastwatch: The Redemption of Christopher Columbus.? it's a sci-fi novel, but if you can get past that, the author presents his ideas about how the american civilizations could have been protected from European invasions, and what would have happened if they hadn't been so completely wiped out by the Conquistadores.? He vaccinates the natives, to counter the diseases; introduces a variant form of christianity, both to ease the fear of the God-like europeans and to aid in diplomatic relations later; and stalls the advance of the Europeans to the New World by about forty years.? He postulates that in that forty year time span, the Aztec empire, on its last legs, would have toppled, but been replaced by an empire of Tlaxcalans, who would utilize the leftover Aztec infrastructure to unify most of the tribes who had fallen under Aztec domination.? also some interesting things in there about naval tech, and its state in the Americas at the time of the conquest.speculative, i'll grant you, but really cool.?
I've read it, it is very well researched.
A question about why the American Indians were so far behind in terms of technology, scholarship, etc. came up over the Thanksgiving dinner this year. Unfortunately I didn't remember Donnie's good list of reasons well enough. I've had to brush up on those answers since.
+1 to all of the above. Don't forget though that the Spanish found several tributary tribes that were ready allies against the Aztecs.Wally
Fascinating forum! I have heard that one of the advantages the Europeans had was that they fought to kill. In battle, the Mayans did not fight to kill, they fought to capture slaves. But I think the real advantage the Europeans had was Small Pox!
What explains the discrepancy in civilization advancement?
Europeans excelled at warfare. The horse and firearms gave them tremendous advantages over the peoples in the New World. And later in Asia.It's really hard to know how far advanced were the peoples of the New World. So much of their culture and knowledge was destroyed to spread Christianity.
It is simple. NW civilizations did not develop technology beyond the level useful to them. The conquistadors also had a unity of purpose that the natives did not and showed themselves more than capable of exploiting internal divisions among the natives to their advantage. Lastly, the Europeans did not fight for temporary gain as the natives did, they fought to conquer and the way Europeans achieved conquest was defeat. I read an interesting piece in The Cambridge History of Warfare that explains the conquest solely in the differences in the way Europeans and Natives waged war. I dont know that I agree with it completely but the differences do go some length to explaining the defeat.
Several things.6. Christianity. Religions that prosyletize provide another way to contribute to the exchange of ideas. The Mayans, Aztecs, and Incas did not prosyletize their religions but remained localized at the main shrines located in capitals such as Tenochitlan.
I doubt about the last reason. Christianity is involved for 2.000 years only, quite a recent actor regarding to History.
I doubt about the last reason. Christianity is involved for 2.000 years only, quite a recent actor regarding to History.
Wouldn't your point only reinforce the point Donnie was making? Given Christianity's relative "newness" in the history of things, it has marked civilizations that have made some of the greatest advancements. In other words, Christianity has helped with the exchange of ideas so that even in a short time, civilizations have gone on to thrive.
